Vertaling: Ed Gunneweg
Paul Bellon
Carolyn Bellon
16684 Palm Avenue
Anderson, Ca. 96007
(530) 357-3270

Pro Se

Paul Bellon and Carolyn Bellon,
husband and wife
Case No:_______________

Plaintiffs

COMPLAINT;
REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
vs. and, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Coca-Cola Company, a Delaware Corporation;
and Douglas Daft, Chief Executive Officer in his official capacity and individually;
and John Does 1-50 inclusive

Defendants

_________________________

           COMES NOW, the above named Plaintiffs, Paul Bellon and Carolyn Bellon, husband and wife, and for a cause of action against the above named Defendant claim and allege as follows.

          This action seeks redress for the Defendant's unlawful acts of knowingly and intentionally using the neurotoxic aspartame as a sugar substitute in the manufacture of its product Diet Coke, while knowing that exposure to aspartame causes among other diseases, abdominal pain, arthritis, asthma, brain cancer, breathing difficulties, burning eyes or throat, burning urination, chest pains, chronic cough, chronic fatigue, death, depression, diarrhea, headaches/migraines, hearing loss, heart palpitations, hives (urticaria), hypertension, impotency and sexual problems, memory loss, menstrual problems or changes, nausea or vomiting, slurring of speech, tremors, tinnitus, vertigo, vision loss. Further, aspartame disease mimics symptoms or worsens the following diseases: Fibromyalgia, Arthritis, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, Lupus, Diabetes and Diabetic Complications, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's Disease, Birth Defects, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Lymphoma, Lyme Disease, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Panic Disorder, and Depression and other Psychological Disorders.

          Despite scientific documentation of the above, Defendant Coca-Cola Company and its leadership (hereinafter "Defendants") has exposed the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers without warning of the known medical and health hazards of aspartame consumption. By these knowing and intentional acts of concealment and concomitant deception of the Plaintiff and other consumers using and consuming Defendants product, Diet Coke, each of these Defendants in the course of doing their business of marketing and selling Diet Coke, knowingly and intentionally exposed the targeted consumer to the toxic chemical aspartame known to the Defendants to cause the above noted medical conditions among others.

          This action is about Defendants intentional targeting of a segment of the general consuming public, including the Plaintiff herein, through advertising and marketing designed to encourage the purchase and consumption of Diet Coke as a diet soft drink while knowing that the major ingredient in Diet Coke is the sugar substitute aspartame and that it is a neurotoxic chemical.

          Ultimately, this action is about falsity ­ about each defendant's knowing and intentional acts of concealment and deception, whereby each Defendant committed fraud and breach of warranty upon the Plaintiff.

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES

          1. The above named Plaintiff's are now and at all relevant times hereto have been residents of the City of Anderson, County of Shasta and the State of California and are and have been consumers of the product Diet Coke and are similarly situated with consumers in the general public and may be representative of a class of persons damaged by the actions/inactions of the Defendants herein as described below.

          2. The Defendant Coca- Cola Company is and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Coca-Cola Company sells its products, including "Diet Coke" in the state of California and worldwide. Coca-Cola Company advertises its product "Diet Coke" extensively in California. Coca-Cola Company's WEB site (which contains some of the false information at issue in this complaint) is accessible to California consumers including the Plaintiffs herein, and it maintains a registered agent in California.

          3. Defendant Douglas Daft as the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant Coca Cola Company, is responsible for the operation of the company and in that capacity is directly and proximately liable for the actions of the company in the use and sale of aspartame as an ingredient in Diet Coke.

          4. Defendant Douglas Daft is individually liable for the actions of Defendant Coca Cola Company in the marketing, sale, misrepresentation and fraud in the sale of products containing the neurotoxin aspartame. The knowing and intentional breach of warranty and fraud committed by Defendant Daft are not within the scope of his employment but rather are a wilful and wanton disregard for the safety and health of the consuming public. Despite medical and scientific evidence to the contrary, individual Defendant Daft has intentionally allowed aspartame products to be placed in the stream of commerce to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers for the benefit of Coca Cola Company profits and gain in the value of his individual holdings of Coca Cola stock or options to purchase said stock.

          5. The true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and Plaintiffs sue the said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will ask leave of the court to amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged herein and may include but are not limited to the corporate officers of Coca-Cola Company both in their official and private capacities, research and development entities that knew or should have known of the health hazards of aspartame, but for reasons yet unknown to Plaintiff participated in the introduction of this neurotoxin into the stream of commerce.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. STATEMENT OF FACTS

­ History of Aspartame.

          6. In 1965 while creating a bioassay, an intermediate chemical was synthesized ­ aspartylphenylalanine-methyl-ester (aspartame).

          7. In December 1965, while James Schlatter was recrystalling aspartame from ethanol , the mixture spilled onto the outside of the flask and some of the powder got onto his fingers. He tasted it and it was sweet.

          8. In 1969 the discovery was first reported in the Journal of the American Chemical Society and in 1970 the discovery of aspartame was reported in the well known publication, Science.

          9. In 1970 Neuroscientist and researcher John W. Olney found that oral intake of glutamate, aspartate and cysteine, all excitotoxic amino acids, cause brain damage in mice (Olney 1970).

          10. In 1971, Ann Reynolds, a researcher who was hired by G.D. Searle and who has done research for the Glutamate (MSG) Association, confirmed aspartame's neurotoxicity in infant mice (Reynolds 1971). And in 1971, Dr. John W. Olney informed G.D. Searle that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of mice (Olney 1970, Gordon 1987, page 493 of US Senate 1987).

          11. On March 21, 1973 board certified pathologist, Dr. Jacqueline Mauro of Biological Research, Ltd. examined data related to Aspartame and reported her findings in what has become known as the MBR Report. She discovered that the drug appeared to induce tumors in the liver, testes, and thyroid of rats.

          12. These statistically significant findings were confirmed by G.D. Searle's Mathematics-Statistics Department.

          13. Further G.D. Searle contracted with another pathologist, Dr. Donald A. Willigan. He was given 1,000 slides to examine. The Willigan Report revealed a statistically significant increase in thyroid and testes tumors.

          14. In July 1975, the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Alexander Schmidt appointed a special Task Force to look at 11 key studies for the drug aspartame. The special Task Force was headed by Philip Brodsky, FDA's Lead Investigator and assisted by FDA Toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross. The Task Force was especially interested in "pivotal" tests as described in an article from Common Cause Magazine by Florence Graves (Graves 1984, page S5499 of Congressional Record 1985a).

          15. On December 5, 1975, the FDA put a hold on the approval of aspartame due to the preliminary findings of the FDA Task Force. The Public Board of Inquiry is also put on hold (Mullarkey 1994b, page 5-6; Federal Register 1975).

          16. In June of 1979, the acting FDA Commissioner, Sherwin Gardner selected the 3-person Public Board of Inquiry.

          17. In 1980 The Public Board Of Inquiry voted unanimously to reject the use of aspartame until additional studies on aspartame's potential to cause brain tumors could be done. The PBOI was particularly concerned about experiment E33/34 where 320 rats received aspartame and a much higher percentage of animals in the aspartame group developed tumors than in the control group (Brannigan 1983, page 196). In addition, the PBOI was concerned about experiment E70 where 80 rats received aspartame. Both the aspartame group and the control group had an unusually high number of tumors, leading one to suspect that both groups were actually given aspartame (Federal Register 1981).

          18. On July 18, 1981 aspartame was approved for use in dry foods by FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. overruling the Public Board of Inquiry and ignoring the law, Section409(c)(3) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348), which says that a food additive should not be approved if tests are inconclusive (Federal Register 1981, Farber 1989,page 38).

          19. In 1983 Acting FDA Commissioner, Mark Novitch approved aspartame for use in carbonated beverages and carbonated beverage syrup bases (Federal Register 1983).

          20. On July 8, 1983, Dr. Woodrow Monte, Director of the Science and Nutrition Laboratory at Arizona State University filed a petition objecting to the approval of aspartame based on possible serious adverse effects from the chronic intake of aspartame. Dr. Monte was especially concerned about the chronic intake of methanol (Federal Register 1984). Dr. Monte also filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Health Services to ban aspartame.

          21. In 1984, The State of Arizona DHS completed studies showing that aspartame in carbonated beverages can break down into free methanol (among other things) in 99oF temperatures. The amount of methanol which broke down concerned the DHS enough that a ban of aspartame was discussed (Gordon 1987, page 507 of US Senate 1987).

          22. 6,900,000 pounds of aspartame were consumed in the U.S. in 1984 (USDA 1988).

          23. On May 7, 1985, the U.S. Senate heard testimony relating to an amendment put forth by Senator Howard Metzenbaum requiring the quantity of aspartame to be labeled (Congressional Record 1985a). It is nearly impossible for a person to determine what quantity of aspartame they are ingesting unless it is labeled. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah led the fight (along with G.D. Searle) against the labeling amendment. The amendment was defeated.

          24. After suffering a $28 million dollar loss in the previous year, selling off 30 subsidiaries, and having a suit filed by 780 women claiming that G.D. Searle's intrauterine device caused them pelvic inflammatory disease, G.D. Searle, the developer of Aspartame sold out to the chemical company, Monsanto (Gordon 1987, page 509 of US Senate 1987).

          25. Monsanto then created the NutraSweet Company as a subsidiary separate from G.D. Searle.

          26. 14,400,000 pounds of aspartame were consumed in the U.S. in 1985 (USDA 1988).

          27. 15,700,000 pounds of aspartame were consumed in the U.S. in 1986 (USDA 1988).

          28. An estimated 17,100,000 pounds of aspartame were consumed in the U.S. in 1987 (USDA 1988). NutraSweet stopped providing consumption data to the USDA after 1987.

          29. On November 3, 1987, The United States Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources heard testimony on the Health and Safety concerns of Nutrasweet (Aspartame).

          30. Also on November 3, 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter to Senator Howard Metzenbaum expressing concerns about the high level of toxicity of Aspartame.

          31. By the end of 1990, 150 products were sweetened exclusively by aspartame.

          32. In 1992, NutraSweet signed agreements with the Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. "stipulating The NutraSweet Company as their preferred supplier of aspartame (Monsanto 1992).

          33. NutraSweet stated that one of their options for increasing sales in the carbonated soft drink market is to prepare "higher-concentration formulations that use more aspartame" (Monsanto 1992).

          34. The FDA approved the NutraSweet Company's application to market aspartame in bulk form. NutraSweet markets the product under the name "NutraSweet Spoonful" (Monsanto 1992).

          35. In 1996, Distinguished Neuroscientist research, Dr. John W. Olney, publishes research showing that aspartame may be a brain tumor agent. He shows that aspartame caused brain cancer in preapproval research, that a breakdown product of aspartame has caused mutations in vitro, and that from 4 to 13 years after approval there was a significant increase in the conversion of less deadly brain tumors to much more deadly brain tumors (same types as seen in preapproval research) in susceptible populations (Olney 1996).

          36. On May 13, 1998 the University of Barcelona produced in final form its study clearly showing that aspartame which was labeled with a carbon 14 isotope was transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of the living specimens and that when they were examined later, the radioactive tagged formaldehyde was spread throughout the vital organs of their bodies.

          37. The chemical breakdown of aspartame in the human body is described as follows. Methanol, from aspartame, is released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounters the enzyme chymotrypsin. Free methanol begins to form in liquid aspartame-containing products at temperatures above 86 degrees F. also within the human body.

          38. The methanol is converted to formaldehyde. The formaldehyde converts to formic acid (ant sting poison). Formic acid is toxic and is used as an activator to strip epoxy and urethane coatings. Phenylalanine and aspartic acid, 90% of aspartame, are amino acids normally used in synthesis of protoplasm when supplied by the foods eaten by humans. But when unaccompanied by other amino acids, they are neurotoxic.

          39. The FDA has established that at least 92 medical/health problems have symptoms associated with Aspartame and include but are not limited to--Abdominal Pain, anxiety attacks, arthritis, asthma and asthmatic reactions, bloating, edema (Fluid Retention), blood sugar control problems (Hypoglycemia or Hyperglycemia), brain cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals), breathing difficulties, burning eyes or throat, burning urination, chest pains, chronic cough, chronic fatigue, confusion, death, depression, diarrhea, dizziness, excessive thirst or hunger, flushing of face, hair Loss (baldness) or thinning of hair, headaches/migraines dizziness, hearing loss, heart palpitations, hives (urticaria), hypertension (high blood pressure), impotency and sexual problems, insomnia, irritability, joint pains, laryngitis, marked personality changes, memory loss, menstrual problems or changes, migraines and severe headaches (trigger or cause from chronic intake), muscle spasms, nausea or vomiting, seizures and convulsions, slurring of speech, swallowing pain, tachycardia, tremors, tinnitus, vertigo, vision loss, weight gain.

          40. Aspartame disease mimics symptoms or worsens the following diseases; fibromyalgia, arthritis, multiple sclerosis (MS), parkinson's disease, lupus, diabetes and diabetic complications, epilepsy, alzheimer's Disease, birth defects, chronic fatigue syndrome, lymphoma, lyme disease, attention deficit disorder (ADD).

--STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO DEFENDANTS

          41. Defendant Coca-Cola Company manufactures diet soft drinks under the trade name Diet Coke.

          42. Diet Coke contains the sugar substitute aspartame, the use of which is the subject of this action.

          43. Defendants market Diet Coke through several media including but not limited to print, audio, video, and internet (being a combination of all three media).

          44. Defendants through print media has made representations about Diet Coke to the consumer that it is safe and healthy.

          45. Defendants through the internet have represented to the consuming public that Diet Coke is safe and healthy.

          46. Defendants knew or should have known that the use of the chemical aspartame in its product Diet Coke was injurious to the health of the consuming public.

          47. Despite said knowledge Defendants failed and refused to inform the consuming public of the known health hazards associated with the consumption of the chemical aspartame.

          48. Defendants continue to sell and market Diet Coke to the consuming public to the detriment and harm to the consuming public without reservation or warning about the known health hazards associated with the consumption of aspartame via Diet Coke.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT CIVIL CODE SECTIONS -----(a) (5) & (7).

          49. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48 above as if fully set forth at this place.

          50. The actions of Defendants as described above constitute deceptive acts or practices undertaken by the Defendants in the transaction with the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals which were intended to result and which resulted in the sale of goods to Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

          51. Defendants knowingly continued to misrepresent the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of its product Diet Coke to the Plaintiff herein and to the consuming public.

          52. Defendants knowingly continued to misrepresent that Diet Coke has characteristics, ingredients, uses, or benefits which it does not have.

          53. Defendants have knowingly continued to misrepresent that Diet Coke is of a particular standard, quality, or grade when in fact Diet Coke and its sugar substitute ingredient is a neurotoxin and hazardous to the health of Plaintiffs and other consumers.

          54. The intentionally deceptive acts of Defendants by knowingly continuing to misrepresent are per se violations of California Civil Code ------(a) (5), and (7) and have damaged Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers in an amount to be proven at trial and in excess of $10,000,000.00.

COUNT II ­ FRAUD

          55. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 54 of this Complaint as if fully set forth at this place.

          56. The Defendants through marketing and advertising have stated to the consuming public that Diet Coke is safe, "good for you", a safe way to loose weight and is generally a healthful product.

          57. At the time these statements were made these statements were false.

          58. The statements made by Defendants about Diet Coke were material statements in that but for those statements the consuming public would not have purchased the product Diet Coke.

          59. Defendants either knew or should have known the statements being made via its world wide advertising of Diet Coke were false or Defendants were unaware of whether the statements were true at the time the statements were made.

          60. The Plaintiffs did not know that the statements made by Defendants concerning Diet Coke were false.

          61. The Defendants intended for the Plaintiffs to rely upon the statements made about Diet Coke and intended Plaintiffs and other similarly situation consumers to act upon said reliance in a manner reasonably contemplated by Defendants; that being the purchase of Diet Coke for consumption by the consumer.

          62. Plaintiffs did rely upon the truth of the statements made by Defendants about Diet Coke and the health and lifestyle benefits available to Plaintiff by consuming Diet Coke.

          63. Plaintiffs' reliance upon the statements made by Defendants concerning the benefits of drinking Diet Coke were reasonable under all the circumstances;

          64. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers suffered damages to their health, directly and proximately caused by reliance on Defendants false statements and advertising regarding the benefits of Diet Coke.

          65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants knowing misrepresentation to the consumer of the health benefits of Diet Coke when in fact the singular most important component of Diet Coke, the chemical aspartame, is a documented health hazard, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers have been damaged and have sustained monetary damages in excess of $10,000,000.00.

COUNT III

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE

          66. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Complaint as if fully set forth at this place.

          67. Defendants intentionally placed in the stream of commerce its product Diet Coke specifically for wholesale and retail sales to the general public consumer.

          68. As a direct and proximate result of said placement in the stream of commerce, the Plaintiff purchased said product, Diet Coke.

          69. Such a purchase and sale of a product as described herein by and between Plaintiff and Defendant is the type of transaction anticipated and governed by the California Commercial Code.

          70. At the time of the transaction described herein, Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff purchased the Diet Coke for the particular purpose of ingesting and drinking the product.

          71. At the time of purchase and as a basis for the purchase, Plaintiffs relied upon Defendants skill and judgment to select and furnish to Plaintiffs goods suitable for ingestion and drinking.

          72. Plaintiffs' reliance upon Defendants skill, judgment and expertise was reasonable in light of Defendant's representations and advertising as described above in this Complaint.

          73. Pursuant to California Commercial Code there exists an implied warranty by Defendants that its product Diet Coke shall be fit for such purpose of consumption by the Plaintiff.

          74. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, Defendants by the sale of Diet Coke to the Plaintiffs has breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as imposed by.

          75. Defendant's breach of said statute has caused Plaintiffs' injury and has damaged Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $10,000,000.00.

COUNT IV

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

          76. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 75 of this Complaint as if fully set forth at this place.

          77. California Commercial Code provides that a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.

          78. Under the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.

          79. Section -- ------ provides that for goods to be merchantable said goods are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used....and are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

          80. Defendants are sellers of Diet Coke and is a merchant with respect to Diet Coke..

          81. Diet Coke is a drink specifically manufactured by Defendants to be consumed by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers either on premises at the location of the sale or elsewhere.

          82. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants use of the neurotoxic chemical aspartame in Diet Coke, the product Diet Coke is not merchantable and is not fit for the ordinary purpose for which Diet Coke is used.

          83. The use of the toxic chemical aspartame in the manufacture of Diet Coke is a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability proscribed by California Commercial Code.

          84. Defendant's breach of said statute has caused Plaintiff injury and has damaged Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $10,000,000.00.

COUNT V

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

          85. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint as if fully set forth at this place.

          86. Defendants continue to use the neurotoxic chemical aspartame as a sugar substitute/sweetener in its product Diet Coke despite the known health and medical hazards of such use.

          87. Defendant continues to deceptively and fraudulently advertise the product Diet Coke as a healthy method of dieting and weight control despite the known health hazards of the chemical aspartame.

          88. For so long as the product Diet Coke, in its present form, is allowed to remain available to Plaintiffs and marketed and sold by Defendants to the consuming public, Plaintiffs herein and the consuming public are being irreparably harmed by the product Diet Coke by the retention of the neurotoxic aspartame and its derivatives in Plaintiffs' and the general consumers bodies.

          89. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers have no other remedy at law or equity but to request that the Defendants be enjoined and restrained from the use of the chemical aspartame as a sugar substitute/sweetener in its product Diet Coke..

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

          WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

          As to Count I:

          1. For an Order from this court finding that Defendants herein and each of them have violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act;

          2. For a money judgment fully and fairly compensating Plaintiffs herein for damages suffered as result of Defendants violation.

          As to Count II:

          3. For an Order from this court finding that Defendants herein and each of them engaged in acts of willful fraud upon the Plaintiffs;

          4. For a money judgment fully and fairly compensating Plaintiffs herein for damages suffered as result of Defendants fraudulent actions;

          As to Count III:

          5. For an Order from this court finding that Defendants herein and each of them breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as found in California Commercial Code ------;

          6. For a money judgment fully and fairly compensating Plaintiffs herein for damages suffered as result of Defendants violation;

          As to Count IV:

          7. For an Order from this court finding that Defendants herein and each of them breached the implied warranty of merchantability as found in California Commercial Code ------;

          8. For a money judgment fully and fairly compensating Plaintiffs herein for damages suffered as result of Defendants violation;

          As to Count V:

          9. For an Order from this court permanently enjoining the Defendants herein from producing, manufacturing, processing, selling or using the neurotoxic artificial sweetening chemical aspartame in any product manufactured or sold by Defendants.

          10. And, for such other relief as the court deems just and proper in the premises.

          Dated this ____ day of March, 2004

          Paul Bellon, Plaintiff

          Carolyn Bellon, Plaintiff

DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL ISSUES PRESENTED IN THIS COMPLAINT TRIABLE TO A JURY